Who to Take Seriously (and Who to Ignore)

The more ridiculous it is, the better. The further in the extreme, the more people react. The game is afoot. The more attention, the more power.

My mom tried to teach my younger sibling to get me to cease teasing her.

"If you stop reacting, just ignore him, it won't be any fun and he'll stop." I was a typical older brother and found no game more fun than cranking my kid sister up. Mom was right, though, it was the reaction that fueled the fun.

The kid never quite absorbed the lesson but I did. Not so much in practice as I have, long into adulthood, been baited into pointless fights over nothing of importance. In theory it sticks.

In the fading argument that impact is more important than intent what fails is the idea that understanding why someone provokes is the key to minimizing the provocation. Further, assuming intent is practically burned into our psyche and is almost always wrong.

Take a look at this from Stanford University:

Basket Case refers to one who has lost all four limbs and therefore needed to be carried around in a basket?

Bury the Hatchet is cultural appropriation of a centuries-old tradition among some North American Indigenous Peoples who buried their tools of war as a symbol of peace?

Balls to the Wall attributes personality traits to anatomy?

OK. That last one is true but there are two examinations of intent to look at. First, if someone says she is a ‘basket case’ is her intent to compare her to an armless, legless person carried around in a basket? Highly unlikely. Common nomenclature indicates that ‘bury the hatchet’ is not used as a reference to the days of the Old West. And if ‘balls to the wall’ is banned, what of the countless 80’s rock songs? Have you no lack of decency?

Second, why would anyone put together such a ridiculous list? Sure, they say they’re seeking to make language more inclusive but this list is a master list of retarded blacklisting nonsense. Assuming intent is generally rife with fallacy but let’s gaze into the soul of what constitutes currency in the digital age: attention. The more attention one receives, the more important one becomes. The list is to provoke, to incite, to get some attention. The more ridiculous it is, the better. The further in the extreme, the more people react. The game is afoot. The more attention, the more power.

As per my mom, the only way to defuse these silly cultural attempts is to stop reacting, ignore this idiocy, and eventually they’ll move on to something else. Remember, it is the attention sought—take away the attention and those hungry for it will look for something else to spark controversy.

Why would anyone suggest ‘ze’ as a preferred pronoun? It’s not a pronoun under any definition of grammar. Ze do it for the attention.

Why would someone suggest that rioting protesters looting stores is just enforced reparations? Headlines.

Why would anyone claim teachers are promoting Critical Race Theory when most people don’t even know what it is? The currency of being seen having said it.

Why would someone with a history of dating men consistently declare themselves ‘non-binary?’ For the attention. Just like the goth craze in the eighties and the long hair of the late sixties and the motorcycle boots worn by Beat poets.

For the same reason I don't engage in conversation with the mentally deranged, rummaging through trash and mumbling about the JFK conspiracy as if it happened last week, I don't engage these cultural warriors, hellbent on retweets, ad hominem attacks, and lots of attention.

If you stop reacting, just ignore them, it won't be any fun and they'll stop.